Yeah . Propably many of You like reiser4 and etc. This thread is not to discuss who are liking it and the reason of liking it or not liking it Im a user of filesystem . I did a simple test to compare a simple things which I doing day by day on my box.

Why ?
I was used reiser4 for a long time. And I was not happy because of some things. I Switched to reiser3. Im not 100% happy because of high cpu usage with it. (dont ask me for reiser4 . In the past I used ext2 and ext3 with the redhat for a long time, also jfs and xfs on Gentoo. JFS code has some improvements and I wanted to see what is the current situation at present time.

1.Want to discover the America once again ?
EXT3 is a most universal filesystem for overall using
the speed of copying kernel and livecd files is the same as with reiser4
every other fs is slower.
Depending of high cpu usage by reiser*** filesystems ( Yes , I want to have better interactivity from the system ) I decided to move to the "roots" .

I see 2 alternatives now : EXT3 and JFS .

EXT3 is more universal and average . JFS _IN OVERALL_ is little slower than EXT3 but has incredible _LOW_ cpu usage in some cases.

IM undecided then .... and dont know what to choose EXT3 or JFS ..

please report Your opinion about ext3 and jfs comparison

cheers
fallow_________________ "Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived" J-L. Picard

Last edited by fallow on Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:13 pm; edited 2 times in total

Well currently I'm an xfs user, and I was thinking that it was time using it a better way, it'seems that there are somme great features available like putting journalisation on another hd than the one you're writting on wich should massively improve latency (I was thinking about getting an old hd for stuffs like this) and I've heard that there were ways to makes it perform very fast on small files.

But now your post make me want to give a try at JFS, but I was wondering if multiples files sytem support won't perform slower (ie using reiser3.6 for /etc, xfs for /home...) for 1) making kernel bigger and 2) increasing cpu load?

Hmm. Yeah . journal data on other hd can be a very good idea. but I dont have possibilities to do it

my target is a home desktop

In the past I had many of different fs for /usr , portage etc. but now I want to stick with the one.

I think that ext3 can be a best choice.

cheers._________________ "Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived" J-L. Picard

Yes I think about sticking with only one too, in order to have an as small as possible kernel, that's why I was wondering If stuffs like initrd could be done with xfs as an example, putting journalisation elsewhere.

BTW I was thinking for desktop too but as I 've got a sata disk I was thinking about getting an old and cheap little ide disk to put journalisation on it, or why not an usb key... or something insane like this

ps : I'm currently trying vivids which seemed to be the closest sources from what I was looking for, and would soon report back my impressions on 'em

Last edited by Enlight on Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

For a while, I had decided to switch to ext3 from reiser3, and found a major issue, at times, when moving or copying a bunch of < 25kb files, the file system would lock up, and cause me to reboot, this has actually happened to me on more than one occassion, with gentoo, and with slackware. With reiser3, i never have this issue. I am curious about JFS though.

Joined: 15 Dec 2004Posts: 1807Location: The University of Maryland at College Park

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:52 pm Post subject:

Here is a pretty good benchmark I found a while ago for xfs, jfs, xext3, ext2, and reiserfs 3.6. Before you say the benchmark is too old, look at the hardware they are using. I think your benchmarks are good fallow, just check these out too. Anyway I use Reiserfs 3.6, I think it has the best mix of stability and speed for my application. However, if you look at the benchmark, you'll see that each filesystem has it's advantages and disadvantages, it's not really like there is a "best filesystem" for all purposes. However, it does seem that this benchmark shows there is worst filesystem for all applications ext3. We'll, not for all aplications, it is stable as hell, but it's also as slow as it is stable. _________________"That question was less stupid; though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way."
I'm the brains behind Jackass! | Tutorials: Shorewall

Actually there have been recent improvement into JFS, and the test takes ext3 and xfs stock, as I said before, there are probably major improvements that can be done both xfs, and some could be done with ext3 too (see codergeek's post for ext3).

BTW if someone could explain me what real time allocator does and how it performs...

Quote:

Optional Realtime Allocator

XFS supports the notion of a "realtime subvolume" - a separate area of disk space where only file data is stored. Space on this subvolume is managed using the realtime allocator (as opposed to the default, B+ tree space allocator). The realtime subvolume is designed to provide very deterministic data rates suitable for media streaming applications.

Joined: 15 Dec 2004Posts: 1807Location: The University of Maryland at College Park

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:52 pm Post subject:

Code:

Optional Realtime Allocator

XFS supports the notion of a "realtime subvolume" - a separate area of disk space where only file data is stored. Space on this subvolume is managed using the realtime allocator (as opposed to the default, B+ tree space allocator). The realtime subvolume is designed to provide very deterministic data rates suitable for media streaming applications.

Yeah, I saw this too. Right now I'm using xfs for a filehosting application, and I would be interested in what I could use this aspect of xfs for in that area._________________"That question was less stupid; though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way."
I'm the brains behind Jackass! | Tutorials: Shorewall

i uses xfs for /home reiserfs for / and may get round to switching /usr/portage to reiser4 eventualy i cant quite place why i like xfs for big files but i do, i think its about matching whats best for the job_________________Giay tay nam | Giay nam cao cap | Giay luoi

(You did reboot or otherwise clear the filecache between tests, right?)

Thanks a lot for the numbers. For JFS's and XFS's low performance and CPU utilization during the file create/remove tests, the explanation is right below: incredibly high latency. This is not a good thing, it means system resources can't being fully utilized. EXT3 also has very high latency (though not as high as X/JFS), but that apparently doesn't prevent it from consuming 100% CPU while performing piss poorly. These numbers also explain why reiser* is so fast at emerge syncing, while not necessarily at other things: they're very fast at file creation/deletion, which emerge sync apparently involves lots of. With the exception of reiser4 rather underperforming, the data read/write tests don't seem to have much variance, which makes sense, as I would assume there's less filesystem involvement anyways (filesystems manage the stuff between the files, not so much the stuff in them).
I'm also surprised about the kernel source and livecd copy/remove test results... the traditionally expected results would have been reiser* dominating the copy/remove tests, and XFS likewise for the livecd copying, which plainly did not happen.

Anyways, the conclusions I would draw from this data (the results would have to be independently verified before I'd put any trust in it):
- reiser4 doesn't (yet) live up to the hype. at best it manages to keep pace with the others, at worst it's significantly off it. coupled with the potential stability issues, it doesn't look too attractive.
- XFS and JFS suck at both file creation/deletion and copying large files, while not making up for it in the other tests. at least they are likely to actually *work*, but nothing to get excited about. (such high latency and poor performance for XFS in copying a large file make me think that there may have been issues with the test configuration in fact, hence the disclaimer above...)
- EXT3 is fucking abysmal at creating/removing files, but performs very solidly at everything else. Assuming you don't mind your emerge syncs going slower (is there anything else that involves heavy file creation/removal besides that?), and given its solid track record, it's a fine enough choice.
- reiser3 leaves everything else in its dust for creating and removing files (only reiser4 gets close), and keeps up quite well in all the other tests. and has a likewise solid track record. it would, hence, be my pick.
(Again, let me reiterate that these conclusions are based on, and only on, the data presented above. More data (such as XFS actually not sucking at the thing it was meant to be good at) may well end up changing them.)

And thanks again to fallow for making the data available._________________Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
last.fm

Last edited by Illissius on Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

This is your choice, really... I've used all of these aside JFS, and honestly couldn't tell the difference between ext2 and reiserfs bu simply using these. Tests and such show the descrepency, but as end user experience goes the differences are miniscule.
On the side note -- pick whatever you like as long as it has journaling. Journaling will slow things down (by a hardly noticeble amount), but wil avoid possible half-writen files etc, so IHMO its worth it.

P.S. reiserfs4 can be the best choice for a simple reason -- a lot of people use it, so if you get into trouble it will be easier finding help, than if you run jfs/xfs.

Actually, ext3 has very good I/O when reading/writing lots of stuff simultaneously (including many creates/writes/deletions in succession) if you enable full data journalling (not simply use the default metadata journalling and block grouping). But I do understand that you're making this conclusion from the data, so this would not be a valid argument in this case to use ext3.

Anyways, from what you've given us fallow, and from what I've read I'm actually very interested in how JFS can perform on a desktop/workstation box as compared to ext3 or ReiserFS v3._________________~~ Peter: Programmer, Mathematician, STEM & Free Software Advocate, Enlightened Agent, Transhumanist, Fedora contributor
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF

This is your choice, really... I've used all of these aside JFS, and honestly couldn't tell the difference between ext2 and reiserfs bu simply using these. Tests and such show the descrepency, but as end user experience goes the differences are miniscule.
On the side note -- pick whatever you like as long as it has journaling. Journaling will slow things down (by a hardly noticeble amount), but wil avoid possible half-writen files etc, so IHMO its worth it.

P.S. reiserfs4 can be the best choice for a simple reason -- a lot of people use it, so if you get into trouble it will be easier finding help, than if you run jfs/xfs.

1.- I doubt it is the most used fs in linux, since it is new and not in the kernel. I don't have official info or something like that, but I think the most used linux fs could be one of ext3 or reiserfs 3.6.

2.- If there are lots of info in the forums about it is because if fails and then people ask for help. Ext3 never fails, so no need to ask.

3.- Paraphrasing: 'windows xp can be the best choice for a simple reason -- a lot (much more than reiser4) of people use it, so if you get into trouble it will be aesier finding help, than if you run linux."

This is your choice, really... I've used all of these aside JFS, and honestly couldn't tell the difference between ext2 and reiserfs bu simply using these. Tests and such show the descrepency, but as end user experience goes the differences are miniscule.
On the side note -- pick whatever you like as long as it has journaling. Journaling will slow things down (by a hardly noticeble amount), but wil avoid possible half-writen files etc, so IHMO its worth it.

P.S. reiserfs4 can be the best choice for a simple reason -- a lot of people use it, so if you get into trouble it will be easier finding help, than if you run jfs/xfs.

1.- I doubt it is the most used fs in linux, since it is new and not in the kernel. I don't have official info or something like that, but I think the most used linux fs could be one of ext3 or reiserfs 3.6.

2.- If there are lots of info in the forums about it is because if fails and then people ask for help. Ext3 never fails, so no need to ask.

3.- Paraphrasing: 'windows xp can be the best choice for a simple reason -- a lot (much more than reiser4) of people use it, so if you get into trouble it will be aesier finding help, than if you run linux."

Dont bother, just jokinng

ext2/3 are the most used linux file systems, however as I said above -- file journaling is a very very good thing to have.

P.S. I have absolutley no animosity towards NT4.0, as Windows goes =) (oh damn I'm about to get flamed...)

is the one thing - > speed of filesystem isnt all . In most cases faster fs occupied this by lost of interactivity . Is important to rethinnk what do U want - faster FS at all costs , or good overall interactivity . Im trying to find a good balance beetwen everything now .

and I think that is must to have better testing than this . this is _very_ very simple test.
JUST to start a discussion . Is many of other better methods . (OH sorry bonnie++ results was good )

now we have another thing to interprete : I THINK THIS test is better much hehe _________________ "Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived" J-L. Picard

ext2/3 are the most used linux file systems, however as I said above -- file journaling is a very very good thing to have.

And that's the exact purpose of ext3. It takes the tried and proven ext2 filesystem and adds a JBD (Journalling Block Device) layer which theoretically allows journalling on any block device I/O. To my understandning though this JBD is still only used in ext3, while the other journalling FSes use their own journalling code.

Quote:

P.S. I have absolutley no animosity towards NT4.0, as Windows goes =) (oh damn I'm about to get flamed...)

Managing big files, this is 9, 10, 13 and 21, makes no sensible difference, predictable, no?
Copying times are also similar (7, 8, 12)
Creation of tons of files (1, 4) is a good job for reiser3 and 4, and so bad one for ext3.
The best finding files (2, 6) are xfs and ext2, the worst are reiser brothers, and jfs in dirs.
When it comes to massive deletion (3, 6), ext2/3 is fast, reiser3 usable, the rest just sucks by long way.
To erase the kernel tree is faster with ext2/3, the worse if jfs. The rest works well also. Strange, this results seems like they contradict the previous one, someone can explain this misteriously thing?

I did not look to the split marks, since, really, I dont think this is any king of usual operation, and can be greatly affected by the size of the files, the free disk space, etc, etc.

The mix is important.
Currently I use reiserfs (3.6) for root and home, xfs for my data partition (file server, lots of bigg files).
Once it's ready (whenever it'll be) I'll change my system and home to reiser4.

Had bad experience with jfs once: On my fileserver I had major data loss on power failure, the partition was unmounable (and believe I searched my ass off the Inet and it turned out that I was doomed (special circumstances though). Switched that to xfs, and even on a software raid, power failure happend again, system rebooted fine and everything was in its place

You always have to consider the purpose the filesystem shall fulfill. For overall usage, reiserfs is fine for me (although it's sad that only 8K blocksize works ), xfs is great for my large data partition.

okay so I guess I'll definitively stick with xfs, morover I tried reiserfs 3.6 once and my sata disk was making twice noise as in xfs while writing... gonna got a usb stick and try to put journalisation on it

of course you can create every filesystem you want on usb sticks... the point however is (IMO):
- to remain data 'really' portable, let it stick to fat16/32
- the media/ship/flash/whatever in usb sticks is usually really cheap. I don't know if you'll gain much be a journal if the media would fail.. :-/

of course you can create every filesystem you want on usb sticks... the point however is (IMO):
- to remain data 'really' portable, let it stick to fat16/32
- the media/ship/flash/whatever in usb sticks is usually really cheap. I don't know if you'll gain much be a journal if the media would fail.. :-/

You didn't got it, only journalisation will be on the stick an data will be on my hard disk :

from the man:
=============

Quote:

The metadata log can be placed on another device to reduce the number
of disk seeks. To create a filesystem on the first partition on the
first SCSI disk with a 10000 block log located on the first partition
on the second SCSI disk, use: